Here it is! Boat Registration Proposed Legislation

[AC2717]

HB 205-FN-A – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0440

03/01

HOUSE BILL 205-FN-A

AN ACT relative to certain boating fees.

SPONSORS: Rep. Drisko, Hills 5

COMMITTEE: Resources, Recreation and Development

ANALYSIS

This bill increases boating registration and license fees.

This bill is a request of the department of safety.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

09-0440

03/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

AN ACT relative to certain boating fees.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Registration Fees. Amend RSA 270-E:5, I to read as follows:

I. The registration fees for commercial, private, and pleasure vessels, including rentals and airboats shall be as follows:

(a) Up to and including 16 feet [$12] $25

(b) 16.1 feet to 21 feet [$17] $35

(c) 21.1 feet to 30 feet [$26] $50

(d) 30.1 feet to 45 feet [$36] $70

(e) 45.1 feet and over [$46] $95

2 Lake Restoration and Preservation Fee. Amend RSA 270-E:5, II(a) to read as follows:

(a) [$5] $6 for each registration specified in paragraph I. The fees collected under this subparagraph shall be paid into the lake restoration and preservation fund established under RSA 487:25.

3 Agent Fee. Amend RSA 270-E:5, II(c) to read as follows:

(c) [$1.50] $5 for each registration processed by an authorized agent of the department who is not an employee of the department. The fees collected under this subparagraph shall be collected and retained by the authorized agent as compensation for processing the registration.

4 Transfer Fee. Amend RSA 270-E:10 to read as follows:

270-E:10 Notice of Transfer; Destruction or Abandonment. The owner shall furnish the department written notice of the transfer of all or any part of his or her interest, other than the creation of a security interest, in a vessel registered in this state pursuant to this chapter or the destruction or abandonment of such vessel within 15 days of its transfer, destruction, or abandonment. Such transfer, destruction, or abandonment shall terminate the certificate of numbers for such vessel, except that in the case of a transfer of a part interest which does not affect the owner’s rights to operate such vessel, the transfer shall not terminate the certificate of numbers. If a vessel is transferred, the original number shall be retained by the new owner. A person who transfers the ownership of a vessel, upon filing a new application, may have another boat registered in his or her name for the remainder of the period for which the vessel is registered for [$3] $5.

5 License Fees. Amend RSA 270-E:23 to read as follows:

270-E:23 License Fees. There shall be paid to the commissioner for every general certificate of captain, master, pilot, or engineer, [$4] $12; and for every limited certificate of captain, master, pilot, or engineer, [$2] $10. A general certificate shall entitle the holder thereof to act in the capacity named on any vessel of the class described in the certificate; a limited certificate shall entitle the holder to act in such capacity only on a particular vessel named in the certificate. Only one certificate shall be required to entitle the holder thereof to act in any or all of the above capacities on any motorized vessel permitted to carry a maximum of 25 persons. The fees paid for certificates issued under this section shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund established under RSA 270-E:6-a.

6 Addition to Boat Fee. Amend RSA 487:25, I to read as follows:

I. The fee of [$5] $6 collected under the provisions of RSA 270-E:5, II(a) shall be paid to the director of the division of motor vehicles. The director of the division of motor vehicles shall pay over said fee to the state treasurer who shall keep the fee in a special fund to be expended by the department of environmental services. The department shall use $.50 of the fee for lake restoration and preservation measures, exclusive of exotic aquatic weed control, [$1.50] $2.50 of the fee for the control of exotic aquatic weeds, and $3 of the fee for the milfoil and other exotic aquatic plants prevention program. The department shall deposit the $3 into a special account within the lake restoration and preservation fund which shall be used to administer the milfoil and other exotic aquatic plants prevention program. The special fund shall be nonlapsing. All funds received under this section are continually appropriated to the department for the purposes of this subdivision.

7 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

LBAO

09-0440

01/02/09

HB 205-FN-A - FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT relative to certain boating fees.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Department of Safety states this bill will increase state and local revenues by an indeterminable amount in FY 2009 and each year thereafter. This bill will have no impact on county revenues or state, county, and local expenditures.

METHODOLOGY:

The Department of Safety states this bill will increase certain boat fees, including registration, transfer, and license fees. This bill will also increase the portion of registration fees paid to the lake restoration and preservation fund, and to authorized registration agents not working directly for the Department. The Department assumes current registrations by boat type will mirror data from the most recent, FY 2006 data. The Department states total boat registration has declined since FY 2006, and estimate this bill may increase navigation safety fund revenues by $1.5 million annually. In addition, the Department estimates an increase in revenue to the DES lakes restoration fund of approximately $100,000 ($1 x 100,000 boats). The Department states the increase in agent fees would increase revenue to some local governments who are municipal agents, however, the Department cannot determine how many agents are local governments, and therefore cannot estimate the exact fiscal impact at this time. The Department states it is unable to calculate revenue impact from the $2 increase in transfer fees since it does not have information on the number of boat transfers. The Department also states it only issues captain’s licenses and estimates the $8 per license increase would increase revenue by $2,808 (351 captains’ licenses x $8 = $2,808).

[AC2717]

This is to take effect in 60 days, so I am sending in my registration today to the state, normally I do it at the marina so the extra money goes to the town, but not this year which stinks

[kjbathe]

Originally Posted by AC2717

...the increase in agent fees would increase revenue to some local governments who are municipal agents, however, the Department cannot determine how many agents are local governments...

The Department states it is unable to calculate revenue impact from the $2 increase in transfer fees since it does not have information on the number of boat transfers.

Otherwise, increasing most fees by 100% or more seems about right. Especially given that our salaries all went up 100% since FY 2006.

Why are we increasing fees if "the Department" can't even figure out how much money those increased fees will generate? I don't want to start a political fight, but I have a real issue with increasing fees, then figuring out how much money Concord can disburse.

Figure out the spending requirements, THEN set the fees.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by kjbathe

Otherwise, increasing most fees by 100% or more seems about right. Especially given that our salaries all went up 100% since FY 2006.

This is a straw-man argument. The fees have remained unchanged for a relatively long time. And since the fees are not a percentage of your salary, then comparing the percentage increase of the fees to the percentage of your wages is somewhat nonsensical.

Surely your salary has gone up at least $25-$50 in the last dozen or so years?

FYI, I'm not in favor of these (or any other) fee increases without justification, but this has nothing to do with the economic climate or percentage increases as compared to some other non-related statistic.

[tis]

Do you think they can increase the price this year when we already have our registrations with the price on it?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by tis

Do you think they can increase the price this year when we already have our registrations with the price on it?

7 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

This information taken from post #1 in this thread. Guess we may want to pony up the money now, and save a bundle, or a few bucks.

[tis]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

7 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

This information taken from post #1 in this thread. Guess we may want to pony up the money now, and save a bundle, or a few bucks.

I saw that upthesaukiee, but I still wonder since we already have our registrations with the price to register on it, if they can really change it in 60 days????

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

I saw that upthesaukiee, but I still wonder since we already have our registrations with the price to register on it, if they can really change it in 60 days????

Has to pass the house, then the senate, then the governer's desk before the clock starts on the 60 days, assuming that part of the bill remains intact. I would not worry about it yet.

[Woodsy]

What Dave R said... nothing will happen prior to the end of the summer season. But you can say the increase will be a sure thing for next year. I banged an e-mail to the Reps to have the bill amended to include sailboats, kayaks and canoes.

besides, as a few of the news articles stated.... they gotta pay for that "free" speed limit!

Woodsy

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

What Dave R said... nothing will happen prior to the end of the summer season. But you can say the increase will be a sure thing for next year. I banged an e-mail to the Reps to have the bill amended to include sailboats, kayaks and canoes.

besides, as a few of the news articles stated.... they gotta pay for that "free" speed limit!

Woodsy

Sure, We don't register kyacks or canoes. Then the town can collect taxes on the canoes and kyacks. But we could offset the cost with the loss of value that occurs because we no longer can use the first 60 feet of our lakefront property.
Better yet, lets just operate like Bernie Maddoff.

[tis]

AC, the government will never have enough money. They could raise taxes on everything and they would still think they need more. They will never be happy with what we pay in taxes.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by tis

AC, the government will never have enough money. They could raise taxes on everything and they would still think they need more. They will never be happy with what we pay in taxes.

I do not know about you but in these tough times right now all my instinct is to save money and look to ways to cut spending. Not with the government though, take example Gov Patrick in MA giving a base raise to the senators and state congress of 5.5% but lets cut spending on the cops, fire departments, and social programs because you know we the people will benefit more from increasing the pay of those that represent us than the Fireman coming to save us in a fire.

What total crap. And did you hear his state of the state address? everything he said was times are tough we have to buckle down, yet last week he gives them a raise? When is the last time anyone of us saw a 5.5% raise? And do not give me this back in 1998 we voted to give them raises, it was also in that law that passed that if the state average incomes go down then their raises or annual salary would go down, you telling me that the state annual wages went up in 2008?

Sorry off the soap box now

[Skip]

The sponsoring Representative explains his reason's for sponsorship in This article found on-line at the Citize,

[Silver Duck]

I, for one, have no objection whatsoever to an increase in user fees. As others have said, user fees are the fair way to pay for services and I don't expect someone else to pony up to pay my way (especially in these tough economic times!)

Silver Duck

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by Skip

The sponsoring Representative explains his reason's for sponsorship in This article found on-line at the Citize,

Wait one minute! Irwin say's the fee is only $17.00.
Irwin wants $5.00 to fill out a registration form. Ridiculous! You shouldn't need five pages of information and it should be computerized. No reason to kick up the fee by 230% (1.50 to 5.00) because business is slow.
I have a 22 footer and the fee is $26.00 plus $11.00 for other required fees or total of $37.00.. You want to increase that 100%. Now the registration fee will be $74.00. (pub Access $5+Search Res $1+lake preserv $5 =$11.00) Hold, on there's more, tax collection fee 1.00. to 2.00. And then there is the boat fee $19.84. Total goes from 57.84 to 94.84. If they decide to increase the boat fee the cost would go to115.68. Lower boat use and cheaper gas should offset the need for any increase. We already pay the highest taxes for the priviledge of living on the lake. Now somebody suggests taxing kyacks and canoes!!!
Remember how they started this thread, The cost is only $17.00 and doubling that should be no big deal.

[upthesaukee]

I got curious what the fees (basic fees, without any adjustment to the other fees such as agent fees, etc) would work out to if they had an inflationary factor applied. Trying to find a chart to give some value to the increases since 1979 was a little interesting, so the first one I came to was the Social Security increases (see this website http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html ), so that's what I used.

I started with Sunbeam's $26 basic fee (Sunbeam: no criticism of you or your post...you just happened to have done out the math!) and applied those increases (none for 1979), and I expected to see them go well above the new, but to my surprise, it came out to $74.29+.

I did not do any rounding off, just remultiplying by 1.xxx. I also did not put in the 5.8 increase for 2008.

So if someone had a 22 footer in 1979 (again, not pointing to Sunbeam) and continued to keep a boat in that length class, the increase would be about the same as we are seeing now.

The problem is that there have been no inflationary increase for thirty years. I can guarantee you that Marine Patrol costs have gone up in that same span.

I belong to a fraternal organization, and our state organization has not a dues increase for 9 years, and are now trying to catch up. We have included in our organizations's constitution an amendment to have the dues increase in pace with inflation, so we do not have a large jump in dues in the future.

I hope that the final act with have a means to have our fees keep place with inflation, and not wait years before another adjustment.

Again, thanks Sunbeam for the math, and again, no criticism sent your way from me.

[Pineedles]

I am among the group of "Little Boaters". I was a "big" boater in the past. I am not opposed to the new fees, but I understand the outrage at the percentage of increase, it seems onerous. We are all dealing with tough times and we can only look forward to when things will be a bit more normal. I guess I am saying that although there are arguments that gov't will always spend what we give them ( Myself included) there comes a time when we have to say we are privileged to have the ability to use this lake for our recreation. Having said that I am not saying that we haven't worked hard to attain this privilege, but perhaps we owe a little bit more to maintaining it, as well as preserving it for others. The gov't will always waste money, but I guess I am willing to contribute to the general fund as long as we are all willing to still keep tabs on them. With great trepidation, I remain truthfully yours,

Pineedles

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

I got curious what the fees (basic fees, without any adjustment to the other fees such as agent fees, etc) would work out to if they had an inflationary factor applied.

Their are problems with tying increases's to inflation.
My home's assessed value has increased more than the inflation factor for many of the years I have owned it. However, now that we are in a deflationary spiral and housing values are falling, do we get a reduction in our real estate taxes or any taxes for that matter. On the matter of taxing Kyacks and canoes $2.00. Ridiculous, cost of the decals and people to administer and mail it would eat up most of the $2.00. Then we need more people to enforce the law. If we refuse to buy the stamp then what? Put us in jail. Yeah, right after Bernie Maddoff goes in.
I don't mind increasing boat registration fees if they go toward increased maintenance.

ce of the lake.

[Misty Blue]

A year or so ago the state raised the cigarette tax $.30 per pack. The folks in our neighbor states said s---- it. It's not worth the time or gas anymore and state revenues went down 2.4 million. Money lost.

The fish and have raised the hunting fees so much that many (casual) hunters who maybe went out one or two days a season are not relicensing. My brother in law who lives out of state isn't going to spend over a hundred bucks for a weekend up at my place. Money lost.

We havn't used the sunfish for a couple of years but kept registering it out of habit. Maybe not this year. Lost money.

We have a mooring that hasn't been used all that much lately. Maybe we should drop that. Lost money.

My point is that many of the dollars spent on the Lake are discretionary dollars and sudden large increases may not bring in more cash.

Just a thought.

Misty Blue.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by kjbathe

Otherwise, increasing most fees by 100% or more seems about right. Especially given that our salaries all went up 100% since FY 2006.

Why are we increasing fees if "the Department" can't even figure out how much money those increased fees will generate? I don't want to start a political fight, but I have a real issue with increasing fees, then figuring out how much money Concord can disburse.

Figure out the spending requirements, THEN set the fees.

I totally agree with you. If they have been running in defecit situations, there should have been proportional increases each year rather than just DOUBLE the fees. Too many government agencies in many states run that sloppy approach to setting fees.

[chase1]

I would like more explanation as to what NHMP needs the additional money for. The Lake Restoration and Preservation Fee, the Agent Fe and the Addition to Boat Fees are pretty clear and reasonable, but these changes only represent $5.50 per registration while the bill calls for a 100% increase. NHMP has done a great job keeping our lakes safe since 1989 under the existing fee structure. No disrespect to the department and what they do, but why the big change this year. Are they looking to update the entire fleet, are they looking to maintain all existing positions and pay structures, are they looking to increase the size of the department?
Boat registrations declined last season and will decline again in 09. Like every other business in the country they too can adapt to the evolving market place. A reduction in registered boats will impact their budget but it also means less boating activity to regulate. NHMP is a seasonal business and they utilize part time positions to handle the summer months. They should be able to adjust their budget for changes in boating activity by regulating these part time positions. The current structure may need an inflation adjustment but 100%? Doubling fees as this bill intends would allow NHMP to maintain its current budget with a 50% reduction in boat registrations and activity. A reduction in boating activity should mean a relative reduction in the size of the NHMP department. Again, I think NHMP does a great job but at a time when cuts are being made everywhere, and boating is in decline......what is their justification for the increase.

Chase1

[fatlazyless]

NH Republican legislators have a long record of saying no to taxes while supporting fees because that way the user is paying for the state service, and the money needs to come from somewhere. State Representative Drisko, who is sponsoring this bill for MP director Barett is a Republican. The existing motor and sailboat fee schedule has not been increased since 1989.

As a paddler and sail-boater, I'm happy to pay for a two-dollar, kayak-canoe-rowboat-less than 12' sailboat, fee sticker as a good method of supporting the NH Marine Patrol and the milfoil, invasive weed program. Hopefully, it would just require a simple sticker on both sides of the bow similar to the rule for sailboats less than 20' and not a set of bow numbers on both sides of the bow.

[tis]

I also believe in user fees. I think they are a lot fairer. I don't mind paying for my boats nor will I mind if I have to pay on the canoe and kayak in the future. What's fair is fair. But you gotta' admit we who live on the lake already do pay our fair share in taxes and then some.

[eyenotall777]

I may get bashed for this one, but I have been thinking about it for awhile now. We all know that most people who fish pay for a fishing license.

BUT, in the winter time a lot of them put "bobhouses" on all the lakes in NH. Moral is, not all but most do leave quite a mess (trash, cans, furniture) and once the thaw comes it becomes harder to remove the items. Some just don't care and let it all sink w/ the thaw.

So how about a "bobhouse" registration valid for 4 months out of the year? If not registered, or unable to show proof of registation, then they are fined.

Most of us need a boating license and most boats need to be registered.

Okay, go ahead.......

[tis]

I for one, agree with you. I am not going to bash you. User fees. They use the lake, why not? We used to do that some and it is great fun. The only problem I have is why they have such out of control spending and think of thousands of ways to tax. I think that every new tax that is implemented must replace another one that can never be reinstitued.. Stop spending for God's sake. The problem is , everyone has their own special pet project and they want it.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As a paddler and sail-boater, I'm happy to pay for a two-dollar, kayak-canoe-rowboat-less than 12' sailboat, fee sticker as a good method of supporting the NH Marine Patrol and the milfoil, invasive weed program. Hopefully, it would just require a simple sticker on both sides of the bow similar to the rule for sailboats less than 20' and not a set of bow numbers on both sides of the bow.

I don't know if $2 would be enough to cover the cost of running the registration program but it shouldn't be too expensive for these boats. I agree a simple sticker would be fine.

[AC2717]

I have said it before and I will say it agian and always say it:

The governement and all the agencies under the government are the only businesses in the world that can operate at deficits for more than a couple years and continue to be in business and continue spending!

Someone please tell me how this is possible, How is it the American government, for example, could have a deficit close to a trillion dollars and still operate as a business and spend spend spend? Taxes are thier response but that does not work when taxes coming in does not cover what is going out? And I am in no way in favor of tax increases at this time in our economy

How is this possible?

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I have said it before and I will say it agian and always say it:

The governement and all the agencies under the government are the only businesses in the world that can operate at deficits for more than a couple years and continue to be in business and continue spending!

Someone please tell me how this is possible, How is it the American government, for example, could have a deficit close to a trillion dollars and still operate as a business and spend spend spend? Taxes are thier response but that does not work when taxes coming in does not cover what is going out? And I am in no way in favor of tax increases at this time in our economy

How is this possible?

How can the government be allowed to operate the Social Security ponzi scheme and medicare with potential deficits of $40,000,000,000,000 (trillions) or more over the next seventy five years?

Because "We the people" allow it to be so.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by jeffk

How can the government be allowed to operate the Social Security ponzi scheme and medicare with potential deficits of $40,000,000,000,000 (trillions) or more over the next seventy five years?

Because "We the people" allow it to be so.

But I do not think that "we the people" allow it to happen, it is almost like no matter who we put in office nothing changes, Even though I agree with you you have to ask

How does it continue to operate at such large loss every year? A business cannot sustain life if it does, what make the government any different? If you only make for example 50k a year and it costs you 75k to 100k to operate pretty soon if not right away there is no money for anything? And as I said before taxes can only go so far so where does the rest of it come from?

Like a Condo assoc it can only operate for so long in the negative before it becomes defunked, no matter what the members pay into it

[Kerk]

Drive out the average guy. !!

[ApS]

...why add a fee on a family's income that doesn't have a place on the lake?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by AC2717

"...The government and all the agencies under the government are the only businesses in the world that can operate at deficits for more than a couple years and continue to be in business and continue spending...!"

You'd like my signature at a lakes region town website:

"Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase."

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...I, for one, have no objection whatsoever to an increase in user fees..."

If you read the Citizen article, you'd have seen this quote:

"Irwin said he thinks most boaters, once the issue is explained to them, will not think the increase unreasonable.

He noted that registration fees for snowmobiles are $78 for state residents and $95 for non-residents while the registration fee for a 21 inch-boat remains $17."

I called for doubling user fees here some five years ago; also, I've seen the Coast Guard statistics that include 3-foot boats , but $17 is 'way too much for that 21 inch-boat!

Originally Posted by chase1

"...Boat registrations declined last season and will decline again in 09...A reduction in registered boats will impact their budget but it also means less boating activity to regulate.

A decline in boat registrations won't necessarily mean a decline in fees if the decrease has been in smaller boat registrations. (Conversely, an increase in larger boat registrations would return larger revenues).

In other words, I don't think that the MP would automatically have "less boating activity to regulate" as the trend to larger boats continues.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...As a paddler and sail-boater, I'm happy to pay for a two-dollar, kayak-canoe-rowboat-less than 12' sailboat, fee sticker as a good method of supporting the NH Marine Patrol and the milfoil, invasive weed program. Hopefully, it would just require a simple sticker on both sides of the bow similar to the rule for sailboats less than 20' and not a set of bow numbers on both sides of the bow.

Like jeffk suspects, I doubt the state is paying only $2 for the two decals you will be paying $2 for. The state will pay 42¢ just to mail it!

You can expect this fee to increase, impacting those most who have been left behind while "the middle" continues the move to larger boats.

[Old Hubbard Rd]

March 13, 2009



On Friday, March 20th, the NH House Ways & Means Committee will hold a public work session on HB 205 at 9:30 AM in room 202 of the Legislative Office Building (LOB). The focus of this amended bill is to add money to prevent and control exotic aquatic weeds like milfoil by increasing boat registration fees. It will include an additional $1.50 per registered boat for exotic aquatic weed control and an additional $1.00 for exotic aquatic weed prevention grants. NH LAKES utilizes some of these monies to help fund our successful Lake Host™ program. ACTION: Please contact a member of the House Ways & Means Committee and voice your support for HB 205 as amended. We need your support on this important legislation to help prevent and control the spread of exotic invasive aquatic weeds.



On Tuesday, March 24th, the NH House of Representatives will vote on HB 350. The focus of this bill is to update the law to include limitations of phosphorus in automatic dishwashing detergents (automatic dishwashing detergents containing low and no phosphorus are readily available today through most manufacturers). Phosphorus can encourage overabundant plant and algal growth which can lead to increased problems with toxic algal blooms and the increased growth of exotic invasive aquatic weeds. By eliminating a significant contributor of phosphorous pollution at its manufacturing sources, we are able to greatly reduce its impact on lakes. ACTION: Please contact your representatives in the House and voice your support for HB 350. Please help us pass this important piece of legislation.



Good news! On Wednesday, March 11th, the NH Senate voted SB 139 Inexpedient to Legislate. This effectively kills this bill that would have created a moratorium on the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act and compromised the pristine quality of NH’s lakes. Thank you to everyone who helped in opposing this legislation.



I will continue to provide the link to your legislators: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/whosmyleg/



Please visit our website at www.nhlakes.org regularly for the latest information.



Thank you.



Jared A. Teutsch

President

New Hampshire Lakes Association

84 Silk Farm Road

Concord, NH 03301

(603) 226-0299